On 5/6/21 10:37 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 10:30:21AM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: >> On 5/6/21 9:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 12:36:14PM -0500, madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>> I was thinking it'd be good to do this by modifying SYM_CODE_START() to >>> emit the section, that way nobody can forget to put any SYM_CODE into a >>> special section. That does mean we'd have to first introduce a new > >> OK. I could make the section an argument to SYM_CODE*() so that a developer >> will never miss that. Some documentation may be in order so the guidelines >> are clear. I will do the doc patch separately, if that is alright with >> you all. > > I was thinking to have standard SYM_CODE default to a section then a > variant for anything that cares (like how we have SYM_FUNC_PI and > friends for the PI code for EFI). > OK. >>> We also have a bunch of things like __cpu_soft_restart which don't seem >>> to be called out here but need to be in .idmap.text. > >> It is already in .idmap.text. > > Right, I meant that I was expecting to see things that need to be in a > specific section other than .code.text called out separately here if > we're enumerating them. Though if the annotations are done separately > then this patch wouldn't need to do that calling out at all, it'd be > covered as part of fiddling around with the annotations. > OK. Madhavan
